I'm the moderator who cleaned up some comments on the question, closed the post, and locked it after you began an edit war. I'd like to write out a few things for transparency and clarity.
There was a long chain of 37 (!!) comments, which, along with the post itself, attracted a total of 15 (!!!) flags. Many of the comments were argumentative and a couple were somewhat rude. A comment thread should never get anywhere near that long; if it does, there's a major issue with a question -- and rudeness has no place here. After two days the discussion was still going nowhere; I saw the flags, deleted some comments, moved the rest to chat, and invited you to again consider whether you might be dealing with a conceptual issue, and to revise the question to pin that down. (As a rule of thumb, questions that are ~5 paragraphs long are typically hard to follow and contain too much extraneous information; this was definitely the case here.)
I closed the question because it certainly needs edits, and because it was increasingly apparent that you believe that you've found a mathematical error in how distances are calculated. The comments make that clear, as do the things that happened three months ago on Physics Stack Exchange (c.f. the deleted question and a subsequent meta post), when the same basic sequence of events played out. Personal theories and questions about non-mainstream science are off-topic here; your question seems to fall into that category.
I'd like to reiterate my recommendation that you take a step back, take a break -- hey, that's never a bad idea -- and reconsider the situation. Try and look at things from another angle. If you're able to succinctly rewrite the question to focus on a conceptual problem, please do; flag it after making edits and ideally it will be reopened. But if you're just trying to make claims that the astronomy community doesn't understand how distances work -- well, this isn't the place for that.